The United Nations and BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions): Modern Antisemitism

Human Rights Council

Bureau of the Human Rights Council

  • February 13, 2017: 1st Organizational Meeting of the 34th session of the UN Human Rights Council, Speaker: President, Human Rights Council, Joaquín Alexander Maza Martelli (El Salvador)

    "I'd like to draw your attention to the report of the High Commissioner which was requested in Council resolution 31/36 entitled "Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem and in the occupied Syrian Golan." This resolution requests the High Commissioner in close consultation with the Working Group on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, in follow-up to the report of the independent fact-finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem, to produce a database of all business enterprises involved in the activities detailed in paragraph 96 of the aforementioned report, to be updated annually, and to transmit the data therein in the form of a report to the Council at its 34th session.

    In a letter addressed to myself personally on the 25th of January the High Commissioner recommended the deferral of this report for one time only to allow for the submission of the report as soon as possible but no later than the end of December this year, in other words, 2017. This request was based on the need for more time to carefully consider the inputs submitted in relation to the open call for submissions, and to ensure due process with regard to the concerned stakeholders is fully respected prior to the compilation and transmission of the aforementioned database in a report to the Council.

    The Bureau in its meeting of 31st January 2017 acknowledged the importance of the High Commissioner and his Office being given additional time in order to deploy every possible effort to complete the report. While noting that the submission of the report should be no later than the end of December 2017, [the Bureau] and agreed to bring the matter before the Council at this organizational meeting with the purpose of taking a decision on the High Commissioner's request.

    Having considered the recommendation from the High Commissioner the Bureau would like to suggest to the Council that it supports the High Commissioner's request. [pause - no comments] Can I therefore take it that the Council endorses the High Commissioner's recommendation that the Council defers just for one time only its consideration of this report under paragraph 17 of resolution 31/36 to allow for the submission of the report as soon as possible but no later than the end of December 2017? There seem to be no objections. It is so decided."

    Adopted without a vote.

  • January 31, 2017: Minutes of the Human Rights Council Bureau

    "The President recalled that on 25 January, he received a letter from the High Commissioner concerning his report to the Council under resolution 31/36 entitled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan", which requests the High Commissioner, in close consultation with the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, in follow-up to the report of the independent international fact finding mission to investigate the implications of the Israeli settlements on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, to produce a database of all business enterprises involved in the activities detailed in paragraph 96 of the aforementioned report, to be updated annually, and to transmit the data therein in the form of a report to the Council at its thirty-fourth session.

    In his letter, the High Commissioner recommends that the Council defers for one time only its consideration of his report to allow for the submission of the report as soon as possible but no later than the end of December 2017. This request was based on the need for more time to carefully consider the inputs submitted in relation to the open call for submissions, and to ensure that due process with respect to the concerned stakeholders is fully respected prior to the compilation and transmission of the aforementioned database in a report to the Council.

    The Bureau acknowledged the importance of the High Commissioner and his Office being afforded additional time in order to deploy every possible effort to complete the report. While noting that the submission should be no later than the end of December 2017, the Bureau agreed to bring the matter before the Council at its organizational meeting of 13 February, with the purpose of taking a decision on the High Commissioner's request."

Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations
and other business enterprises


Statements
  • June 6, 2014: Statement on the implications of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in the context of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

    "At its 5th session held in Geneva (17-21 June 2013) the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (the Working Group) considered the Council's request and decided to respond by issuing a statement outlining the implications of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (hereafter the Guiding Principles) in the context of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory including East Jerusalem (OPT) before the 26th session of the Human Rights Council.
    ...
    The Guiding Principles further recognize that in conflict-affected areas, the "host" State may be unable to protect human rights adequately owing to a lack of effective control, or it may itself be engaged in human rights abuses. Where transnational corporations are involved, their "home" States therefore have crucial roles to play in assisting both those corporations and host States to ensure that businesses are not involved with human rights abuse, while neighbouring States can provide important additional support.
    ...
    [H]ome States of transnational corporations operating in the settlements also have an important role to play, and even more so in contexts of occupation, such as the OPT, where the occupying State may be unwilling or unable to protect human rights effectively within the occupied territory or may itself be committing or contributing to human rights violations within the occupied territory. In this regard homes States may wish to take into consideration reports of, inter alia, the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights documenting violations by Israel in relation to the settlements.
    ...
    On the multilateral level, the European Union has implemented measures to exclude products produced in the Israeli settlements from preferential tariff and trade treatments between the European Union and Israel. The EU has also issued a directive that prevents EU funding in the form of grants, prizes and financial instruments (including to dedicated investment vehicles, financial intermediaries, sub-intermediaries and to final recipients) to Israeli entities or their activities if the entity has operations in the settlements in the OPT. In addition, on 22 June 2013, the European Commission published implementing regulation OJEU L-170 on marketing standards that excluded fresh fruit and vegetables in the Occupied Territories from the possibility of being certified by Israeli authorities. Some states, such as the United Kingdom, have also issued more specific warnings to business relating to activities with and from Israeli settlements in the OPT. In December 2013, UK Trade & Investment cautioned that: "There are [...] clear risks related to economic and financial activities in the settlements, and we [UK Trade & Investment] do not encourage or offer support to such activity. Financial transactions, investments, purchases, procurements as well as other economic activities (including in services like tourism) in Israeli settlements or benefiting Israeli settlements, entail legal and economic risks stemming from the fact that the Israeli settlements, according to international law, are built on occupied land and are not recognised as a legitimate part of Israel's territory." In some cases, States have also taken measures to withdraw investment in business enterprises that are considered to be at risk of involvement with human rights abuses in the OPT. For example, in 2009, the Norwegian Ministry of Finance excluded Elbit Systems (an Israeli defence electronics company providing surveillance equipment to settlements) from Norway's Pension Fund Global portfolio on the recommendation of the Council of Ethics for the Pension Fund. Since 2012, the Pension Fund Global also excluded Shikun & Binui Ltd., a large Israeli real estate firm, because of its involvement in constructing settlements. In January 2014, the Ministry of Finance decided to exclude Africa Israel Investments and Danya Cebus from the Fund because of their involvement in settlement construction in East Jerusalem. Both companies were previously excluded during the period August 2010 to August 2013 because of similar activities.
    ...
    Business enterprises that have activities in the settlements or have business relationships with entities in the settlements should take due note of reports and resolutions of the United Nations human rights system concerning human rights violations related to Israeli settlements in the OPT
    ...
    Business enterprises doing business, or seeking to do business, in or connected to the Israeli settlements in the OPT need to be able to demonstrate that they neither support the continuation of an international illegality nor are complicit in human rights abuses; that they can effectively prevent or mitigate human rights risks; and are able to account for their efforts in this regard – including, where necessary, by terminating their business interests or activities.
    ...
    The Working Group notes that there are several examples of business enterprises that have decided to disengage from relationships or activities associated with the settlements in the OPT due to the risks involved
    ...
    States that are 'home State' of business enterprises operating in or connected with settlements in the OPT should engage with such enterprises at the earliest possible stage to provide advice and guidance, and should make clear the State's policy in regard to the settlements. States may also consider additional measures. Businesses that have activities or business relationships in or connected with the settlements in the OPT should be cognizant of the risks of negative human rights impacts that any such activities would entail. In exercising due diligence, enterprises should familiarise themselves with available information on the human rights impacts of Israeli settlements in the OPT and on the existence or absence of measures taken by Israel as the occupying power to effectively protect against such impacts. Business enterprises must also actively avoid complicity in human rights violation by carefully considering how their activities might contribute to adverse human rights impacts caused by other parties, including their 'suppliers' and other 'business relationships'
    ...
    Where business enterprises identify that they have caused or contributed to adverse human rights impacts through settlement-related activities such as construction or servicing of the settlements, they should provide for or cooperate in their remediation through legitimate processes."

Commission on Human Rights


Resolutions
  • April 20, 2005: UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution, Human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises," E/CN.4/2005/69

    "The Commission on Human Rights,
    ...
    1. Requests the Secretary-General to appoint a special representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, for an initial period of two years, who shall submit an interim report to the Commission on Human Rights at its sixty-second session and a final report at its sixty-third session, with views and recommendations for the consideration of the Commission, with the following mandate:
    (a) To identify and clarify standards of corporate responsibility and accountability for transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights;
    (b) To elaborate on the role of States in effectively regulating and adjudicating the role of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights, including through international cooperation;
    (c) To research and clarify the implications for transnational corporations and other business enterprises of concepts such as "complicity" and "sphere of influence";
    (d) To develop materials and methodologies for undertaking human rights impact assessments of the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises;
    (e) To compile a compendium of best practices of States and transnational corporations and other business enterprises;"

    Adopted by a vote of 49 votes in favor (Argentina, Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Zimbabwe) 3 against (Australia, South Africa, United States of America), 1 abstention (Burkina Faso)
  • April 14, 2005: UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution, Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, E/CN.4/2005/7

    "The Commission on Human Rights,
    ...
    9. Calls for the boycott of firms involved in the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem;"

    Adopted by a vote of 29 in favor (Armenia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Congo, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Zimbabwe), 10 against (Australia, Canada, Germany, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, United Kingdom, United States), and 14 abstentions (Argentina, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Guatemala, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Russia, Ukraine)
  • February 15, 1988: UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution, Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, E/CN.4/1988/1 A

    "The Commission on Human Rights,
    ...
    13. Requests the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council, to recommend to the Security Council the adoption against Israel of the measures referred to in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations for its persistent violation of the human rights of the population of the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories;"

    Adopted by a vote of 31 in favor (Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, China, Colombia, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, India, Iraq, Mexico, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Togo, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Venezuela, Yugoslavia), 8 against (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom, United States), 4 abstentions (Costa Rica, Ireland, Japan, Spain)
  • February 19, 1987: UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution, Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, E/CN.4/1987/2

    "The Commission on Human Rights,
    ...
    12. Reiterates its call to all States, in particular the States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of war, in accordance with article 1 of that Convention, and to international organizations and specialized agencies, not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and to avoid taking any action or extending any aid which might be used by Israel in its pursuit of the policies of annexation and colonization or any other policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;

    13. Requests the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council, to recommend to the Security Council the adoption against Israel of the measures referred to in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations for its persistent violation of the human rights of the population of the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories;

    Adopted by a vote of 28 in favor (Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, China, Colombia, Congo, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, India, Iraq, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Togo, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Venezuela, Yugoslavia), 8 against (Australia, Belgium, Prance, Germany, Italy, Norway, United Kingdom, United States), 6 abstentions (Austria, Costa Rica, Ireland, Japan, Liberia, Mexico)
  • February 20, 1986: UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution, Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, E/CN.4/1986/1 A

    "The Commission on Human Rights,
    ...
    12. Reiterates its call to all States, in particular the States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, in accordance with article 1 of that Convention, and to international organizations and specialized agencies, not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and to avoid taking any action or extending any aid which might be used by Israel in its pursuit of the policies of annexation and colonization or any other policies and practices referred to in the present resolution)
    ...
    14. Requests the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council, to recommend to the Security Council the adoption against Israel of the measures referred to in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations for its persistent violation of the human rights of the population of the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories."

    Adopted by a vote of 29 in favor (Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Congo, Cyprus, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic, India, Jordan, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Venezuela, Yugoslavia), 7 against (Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Norway, United Kingdom, United States), 6 abstentions (Austria, Costa Rica, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Spain)
  • February 19, 1985: UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution, Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, E/CN.4/1985/1 A

    "The Commission on Human Rights,
    ...
    13. Reiterates its call to all States, in particular the States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, in accordance with article 1 of that Convention, and to international organizations and specialized agencies, not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and to avoid taking any action or extending any aid which might be used by Israel in its pursuit of the policies of annexation and colonization or any other policies and practices referred to in the present resolution.
    ...
    15. Requests the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council, to recommend to the Security Council the adoption against Israel of the measures referred to in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations for its persistent violation of the human rights of the population of the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories."

    Adopted by a vote of 28 in favor (Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Congo, Cyprus, Gambia, German Democratic Republic, India, Jordan, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Peru, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, 5 against (France, Germany, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States), 8 abstentions (Australia, Austria, Costa Rica, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Spain)
  • February 20, 1984: UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution, Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, E/CN.4/1984/1 A

    "The Commission on Human Rights,
    ...
    9. Reiterates its call to all States, in particular the States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, in accordance with article 1 of that Convention, and to international organizations and specialized agencies, not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and to avoid taking any action or extending any aid which might be used by Israel in its pursuit of the policies of annexation and colonization or any other policies and practices referred to in the present resolution.
    ...
    14. Requests the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council, to recommend to the Security Council the adoption against Israel of the measures referred to in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations for its persistent violation of the human rights of the population of the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories."

    Adopted by a vote of 29 in favor, 1 against, 11 abstentions
  • February 15, 1983: UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution, Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, E/CN.4/1983/1 A

    "The Commission on Human Rights,
    ...
    9. Reiterates its call to all states, in particular the States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, in accordance with article 1 of that Convention, and to international organisations and specialized agencies, not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and to avoid taking any action or extending any aid which might be used by Israel in its pursuit of the policies of annexation and colonization or any other policies and practices referred to in the present resolution.
    ...
    11. Requests the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council, to recommend to the Security Council the adoption against Israel of the measures referred to in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations for its persistence in violating the human rights of the population of the Palestinian and other occupied Arab territories."

    Adopted by a vote of 29 in favor (Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, India, Jordan, Libya, Mexico, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Senegal, Togo, Uganda, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe), 1 against (United States), 13 abstentions (Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Finland, Fiance, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Rwanda, United Kingdom, Zaire)
  • February 11, 1982: UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution, Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, E/CN.4/1982/1 A

    "The Commission on Human Rights,
    ...
    10. Reiterates its call to all States, in particular the States parties to the Geneva. Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, in accordance with article 1 of that Convention, and to international organizations and specialized agencies, not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and to avoid taking any action or extending any aid which might be used by Israel in its pursuit of the policies of annexation and colonization or any other policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;"

    Adopted by a vote of 32 in favor (Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, India, Jordan, Mexico, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Uganda, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia, Zimbabwe), 3 against (Australia, Canada, United States), 7 abstentions (Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, United Kingdom)
  • February 11, 1982: UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution, Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, E/CN.4/1982/2

    "The Commission on Human Rights,
    ...
    4. Calls upon all Member States to apply against Israel the measures referred to in paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 15 of General Assembly resolution ES-9/l of 5 February 1982."

    Adopted by a vote of 22 in favor (Algeria, Bulgaria, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, India, Jordan, Pakistan, Poland, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic, Togo, Uganda, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe), 11 against (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Fiji, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States), 7 abstentions (Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, Panama, Uruguay, Zaire)
  • February 11, 1981: UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution, Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, E/CN.4/1981/1 A

    "The Commission on Human Rights,
    ...
    17. Reiterates its call upon all States, in particular the States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War in accordance with article 1 of that Convention, and upon international organizations and specialized agencies, not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, and to avoid talcing any action or extending any aid which might be used by Israel in its pursuit of the policies of annexation and colonization or any other policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;"

    Adopted by a vote of 31 in favor (Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Iraq, Jordan, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia), 3 against (Australia, Canada, United States), 8 abstentions (Denmark, Fiji, France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom)
  • February 13, 1980: UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution, Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, E/CN.4/1980/1 A

    "The Commission on Human Rights,
    ...
    11. Reiterates its call upon all States, in particular the States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War in accordance with article 1 of that Convention, and upon international organizations and specialized agencies, not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories and to avoid taking any action or extending any aid which might be used by Israel in its pursuit of the policies of annexation and colonization or any of the other policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;"

    Adopted by a vote of 28 in favor (Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Mongolia, Morocco, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia), 3 against (Canada, Netherlands, United States), 8 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, Ivory Coast, Panama, Portugal, United Kingdom)
  • February 21, 1979: UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution, Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, E/CN.4/1979/1 A

    "The Commission on Human Rights,
    ...
    11. Reiterates its call upon all States, in particular the States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War in accordance with article 1 of that Convention, and upon international organizations and specialized agencies, not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories and to avoid taking any action or extending any aid which might be used by Israel in its pursuit-of the policies of annexation and colonization or any of the other policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;"

    Adopted by a vote of 20 in favor (Bulgaria, Burundi, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Senegal, Syrian Arab Republic, Uganda, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia), 2 against (Canada, United States), 9 abstentions (Australia, Austria, Brazil, France, Germany, Ivory Coast, Portugal, Sweden, Uruguay)

  • February 14, 1978: UN Commission on Human Rights Resolution, Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, E/CN.4/1978/1 A

    "The Commission on Human Rights,
    ...
    12. Reiterates its call upon all States, in particular the States parties to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, in accordance with article 4 of that Convention, and upon international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any changes carried out by Israel in the occupied territories and to avoid taking any action or extending any aid which might be used by Israel in its pursuit of the policies of annexation and colonization or any of the other policies and practices referred to in the present resolution;"

    Adopted by a vote of 23 in favor, 2 against, and 7 abstentions
Statements
  • June 26, 2001: Statement by Mr. Attar (Saudi Arabia) at the 20th meeting of the 57th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2001/SR.20

    "20. Saudi Arabia called upon the Security Council and its permanent members, particularly the United States of America, to assume their responsibilities by taking measures under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations."

  • June 26, 2001: Statement by Mr. Hussain (Malaysia) at the 20th meeting of the 57th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2001/SR.20

    "33. The continuing deterioration in the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories was an indication of the powerlessness of the international community to deal with the question. OIC urged the Commission to endorse the requests made to the Security Council to adopt mechanisms envisaged under Chapter VII of the Charter so as to protect the Palestinian population."

  • June 26, 2001: Statement by Mr. Al-Hussami (Syria) at the 20th meeting of the 57th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2001/SR.20

    "55...The United States and other countries should withdraw their support for Israel and respect the principles of human rights, the Charter of the United Nations and international law. They should provide proper protection for the Palestinians and the Syrian Arab Golan and impose sanctions on Israel to force it to implement United Nations resolutions and withdraw unconditionally from Syria and Lebanon."

  • May 8, 2001: Statement Mr. Abu Hartieh (Al-Haq - Law in the Service of Man) at the 21st meeting of the 57th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2001/SR.21

    "82... In order to ensure protection of the rights of the Palestinian people,...the General Assembly of the United Nations should be urged to adopt effective measures, including economic sanctions, against Israel to oblige Israel to respect United Nations resolutions, including Security Council resolutions 194, 242 and 338..."

  • April 6, 2001: Statement by Mr. Al-Zulof (Defence for Children International) at the 22nd meeting of the 57th session of the Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2001/SR.22

    "41. In the first place an internationally endorsed boycott should be adopted. The boycott should extend to trade with, investment in or travel to Israel and should include countries such as the United States which supported Israel financially and militarily and military hardware companies that supplied Israel. Secondly, the international community should send a temporary protection force. Thirdly, an international tribunal should be established for the purpose of prosecuting those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem after 29 September 2000."

  • April 6, 2001: Statement by Ms. Luping (Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies) at the 22nd meeting of the 57th session of the Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2001/SR.22

    "32. The lives of Jewish women and children were endangered when they were settled in illegal militarized settlements, as the recent tragic death of a Jewish Israeli child in Hebron showed. Words of condemnation from the international community had failed to secure peace. Strong, effective steps must be taken, including sanctions, embargoes and the immediate deployment of an international peacekeeping force."

  • April 6, 2001: Statement by Mr. Gadir (Arab Organization for Human Rights) at the 22nd meeting of the 57th session of the Commission for Human Rights, E/CN.4/2001/SR.22

    "50. The Government of Israel had been encouraged in its actions by the failure of the international community to impose appropriate sanctions and the situation was likely to deteriorate further."

  • 23 November 2000: Statement by Mr. Abuseif (Libya) at the 3rd meeting of the 5th special session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/S-5/SR.3

    "79. The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya condemned those practices and called for the heaviest possible sanctions to be imposed on Israel. Steps should be taken to protect Palestinian civilians and the necessary mechanisms established to shed light on the recent events."

  • 2 February 1995: Statement by Mr. Hafyana (Libya) at the 7th meeting of the 51st session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1995/SR.7

    "68. In view of the practices documented by the Special Rapporteur, his delegation wondered why the Security Council had failed to adopt resolutions imposing sanctions on Israel to compel it to implement its resolutions regarding the occupation of Arab territories, their annexation by force and the Judaization of Jerusalem and Hebron. As those actions were a threat to international peace and security, they logically called for the implementation of the terms of Chapter VII of the Charter and all its mechanisms.

    69. The Security Council had adopted resolutions against other States, such as his own, which had not invaded, occupied or annexed another State's territory, but the Council was obviously powerless and prejudiced in the case of Israel. The reason was that Israel had protectors both inside and outside the Security Council, whose aim was to foil any attempt to take action against it under Chapter VII by ensuring that the veto was used whenever the world's conscience was stirred...

    70. As the Special Rapporteur rightly stated in paragraph 76 of his report, political condemnation was not proving effective in the area of enforcement of human rights in the occupied territories. The Security Council therefore had no alternative but to face up to its responsibilities in a spirit of justice and equity and to adopt a resolution imposing sanctions on Israel, together with the other mechanisms provided for under Chapter VII of the Charter, until such time as Israel complied with its resolutions."

  • February 3, 1993: Statement by Mr. Osden (Centre Europe-Tiers Monde) at the 5th meeting of the 49th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1993/SR.5

    "28. To put an end to the policy of exclusion and ethnic cleansing,...the Security Council should assert its independence by applying immediate sanctions against the State of Israel."

  • January 30, 1992: Statement by Mr. Hafiana (Libya) at the 6th meeting of the 48th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1992/SR.6

    "28. In view of the Security Council and General Assembly resolutions that had been adopted, Israel could do one of two things; either it complied with the resolutions and ended human rights violations in the occupied Arab territories and Palestine by withdrawing from those regions, or it could refuse to comply with them, in which case and in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council should require compliance by adopting specific measures and applying sanctions against Israel."

  • January 29, 1992: Statement by Mr. Roa Kouri (Cuba) at the 4th meeting of the 48th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1992/SR.4

    "12. ...The Zionist authorities, who were imposing a racist policy of Judaization by force of arms in the occupied territories...The demolition of houses in retaliation for the activities of the Palestinian resistance, a totally arbitrary policy pursued with complete impunity, was reminiscent of the Nazi brutalities committed in Lidice, Warsaw and hundreds of villages in the former Soviet Union...

    14. For decades, the United Nations, paralysed by the United States veto in the Security Council, had been unable to sanction Israel for the violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people and the other Arab inhabitants in the occupied territories."

  • February 1, 1991: Statement by Mr. Chabala (Zambia) at the 7th meeting of the 47th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1991/SR.7

    "14. Israel' s systematic refusal to implement the Commission's resolutions and Security Council resolution s 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) was based on the conviction that no international sanctions would be taken against it so long as it enjoyed the support and protection of its major Western allies."

  • February 6, 1990: Statement by Miss Chabai (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic) at the 11th meeting of the 46th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1990/SR.11

    "81. At its most recent session, the General Assembly...called upon all States and organizations to cease all co-operation with the Zionist entity in the nuclear field. The Western States which constantly supported Israel and South Africa must therefore review their positions in the light of the recent developments which had clearly shown the policies of those régimes to be based on persecution and disenfranchisement."
  • February 6, 1989: Statement by Miss Chabai (Observer for the Syrian Arab Republic) at the 10th meeting of the 45th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1989/SR.10

    "37. It was no accident that the Zionist and apartheid régimes co-operated in various fields, especially in nuclear research. Together they planned to dominate the Arab and African peoples through the use of threats and terror. The United States - which supplied the arsenals of both Israel and South Africa - had consistently opposed the implementation of comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against those two régimes."
  • February 7, 1985: Statement by Mr. Dhillon (India) at the 6th meeting of the 41st session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1985/SR.6

    "32...The Conference had expressed its full solidarity with the Palestinian people and the PLO and had demanded that the United Nations Security Council should invoke the power vested in it with a view to imposing on Israel the relevant sanctions prescribed in the Charter of the United Nations until that country withdrew from all occupied Arab territories and complied fully with its relevant decisions."
  • February 3, 1983: Statement by Mr. Lopatka (Poland) at the 6th meeting of the 39th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1983/SR.6

    "33. The United Nations...was also entitled to take action against gross violations of human rights by Israel. Unfortunately, the protectors of that country were blocking the adoption of workable sanctions."
  • February 3, 1983: Statement by Mr. Ogurtsoz (Observer for the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) at the 6th meeting of the 39th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1983/SR.6

    "3...The time had come to consider applying sanctions against Israel in conformity with Chapter VII of the Charter, and to take action to counter Israel's expansionist designs. "
  • February 3, 1983: Statement by Mr. Albadran (Observer for Iraq) at the 6th meeting of the 39th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1983/SR.6

    "110. More than ever before, there was a need ... to call upon all States members of international organizations to refrain from providing Israel with economic, military or political aid; to impose on Israel sanctions similar to those that had been imposed on South Africa; to prevail upon Israel to respect and apply international conventions and agreements; to encourage bodies within the United Nations system and, in particular, the Special Committee to continue their investigation of Israeli practices in the occupied Arab territories..."
  • February 3, 1983: Statement by Mr. Zorin (Union of Soviet Socialist Republic) at the 5th meeting of the 39th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1983/SR.5

    "The idea of imposing sanctions upon Israel analogous to those imposed on South Africa was worthy of special attention."
  • February 8, 1982: Statement by Mr. Kherad (observer for Afghanistan) at the 11th meeting of the 38th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1982/SR.11

    "47...To meet the legitimate demands of the Syrian Government, the Security Council should as a matter of urgency adopt effective measures and sanctions against those responsible for the annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights under Chapter VII of the Charter."
  • February 5, 1982: Statement by Mr. Al-Kaisy (Observer for Iraq) at the 9th meeting of the 38th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1982/SR.9

    "24. Iraq was not satisfied with that resolution and had stated that it reserved the right to take further action on the lines of the resolution. Moreover, the resolution failed to satisfy the desire of international public opinion to see sanctions imposed on Israel - a step which had not been taken because of the attitude of the United States."
  • "To meet the legitimate demands of the Syrian Government, the Security Council should as a matter of urgency adopt effective measures and sanctions against those responsible for the annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights under Chapter VII of the Charter."

  • February 4, 1982: Statement by Mr. Vo (observer for Viet Nam) at the 7th meeting of the 38th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1982/SR.7

    "24. As the annexation of the Golan Heights was an act of flagrant aggression, appropriate sanctions should be taken against the perpetrators of that act. The Security Council should take as a matter of urgency the measures provided for under Chapter VII of the Charter in order to respond to the legitimate request of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic. It was, however, deeply regrettable that once again the Security Council had been unable to carry out its responsibilities because of the United States veto."
  • February 3, 1982: Statement by Mr. Skalli (Morocco) at the 5th meeting of the 38th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1982/SR.5

    "25... It was...essential for the international community to assume its responsibility by proceeding beyond the stage of verbal condemnation and deciding to impose sanctions on Israel. Only such sanctions would induce the Zionist authorities to modify their position."
  • February 4, 1981: Mr. El Fattal (Syrian Arab Republic) at the 1586th meeting, held during the 37th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/SR.1586

    "2. The only logical answer, as the Syrian Arab Republic has constantly reiterated, is to expel Israel from, the United Nations... and to apply to it the sanctions provided for under Chapter VII of the Charter so long as it refused to respect its international obligations. In any event, even those who had defended it were starting to turn against a State that had neither faith nor law.
    ...
    8...[T]he international community must translate its condemnation of Israeli policies into concrete action, which included, the application of sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter and. the expulsion of Israel from the United Nations."